Breaking in Music

[DavidW]

I had been thinking about how many listens it takes to really enjoy something.  For instance, I've listened to Bartok's String Quartets once and I found them to be just impenetrable, so I listened to them like ten times more than and then howdy I liked them.  So I kept listening to them and they became some of my favorite music.  Now how much of that is because it's some of the best music ever written and how much of that is because of all of the repeated listenings that I did?  When you look at the great composers, and their masterpieces certainly anything should sound fantastic after awhile but how long?

Now this is not going to be about emotional engagement.  The poll is about how many listens do you need to feel that you know where the music is going, you can anticipate because you remember it.  You hear the themes, and you recall them later.  That's what I'm talking about.  

Eventually you've heard the recording so many times, that if you pop in a different performance you would be able to immediately tell how it differs from the other one, even if it's only in subtle nuances.  How long does that take?  How many listens?  What distinguishes the casual Mahler fan from the Mahlerite?  The Bach listener from Don?  How many listens does it take before you really know the piece?  Take that just for discussion and not voting, the feel like you know where it's going is good enough for the poll.

Now these are not background listens, but the full out sitting in front of the tower speakers like the Maxell ad listening, where you have your full, undivided attention concentrated on the music.  Also I know that it will depend on the music itself, so just choose the composer you have an affinity for as the representation in your mind, but someone that's not too complex, such as Carter or Boulez.

[DavidW]

That's interesting that you mention math because research has indicated that at least thirty exercises are required to gain full understanding and ability to apply a mathematical concept.  Some threads on learning mathematics on physicsforum seem to suggest that the most proficient mathematicians devote significant time to problem solving when a learning a subject, and only digest a few pages of advanced math a day when studying something new.

I've had that feeling before.  Studying upper level math, reading a theorem, and a proof even filling in the details and making sure I understood every step.  I think I get it.  And then on the first exercise that required a slightly non-trivial application of the theorem(s) in a different setting, and I struggle with the application and I'm like "I only thought I got it!"

Of course we don't have exercises in music listening, but the point here is not understanding the structure, just simply knowing it.

[DavidW]

Yes, it is interesting how perception might cloud our assessment of the music.  For instance since I expect a homophonic sound from Haydn, that's what I tend to hear.  I need to be informed about the contrapunctal textures, and then I listen again for that and then I hear that when I should have before.  Just like the guests noticing things that you tend to tune out.  That's probably because I'm not a critical listener, but there it is.

That's also why I've been playing around with trying to implement abx software for unbiased music listening.  I want to see how much of my impression of how an ensemble or a certain composer sounds is dependent on my bias, and how much of it is the music alone.  It's a challenging task to set it up right though.  There are too many factors that get in the way.

[Bulldog]

I picked 3-10.  With a lower number, I think that one might miss full appreciation of a rather complicated piece of music.  Also, the simple pieces could sound quite rewarding after just one or two spins, while listening for up to 10 times would clearly tell the listener that the music has little to offer in the long-run; do I hear Dittersdorf?

[drogulus]

     It would also depend on what your idea of full comprehension is. For someone without a formal musical background that's not an easy thing to estimate or even define. For me there are always new things to learn.

[Bulldog]

     It would also depend on what your idea of full comprehension is. For someone without a formal musical background that's not an easy thing to estimate or even define. For me there are always new things to learn.

I agree but didn't want to muddy the waters.  Even though I suppose I know the Goldbergs as well as anyone, there are times when I hear something from a new recording that I've never heard before, causing a bell to go off in my head.

[greg]

3-10 is too large of a range. There should be more choice, maybe 3-5, 6-8, 9-10?
Also, it really depends on the type of music. Maybe 4-6 times for a short Haydn piece, 8-11 times for Schoenberg, and 20-30 times for Boulez or Carter. 

[DavidW]

     It would also depend on what your idea of full comprehension is. For someone without a formal musical background that's not an easy thing to estimate or even define. For me there are always new things to learn.

That's why I wanted to limit the poll to knowledge based instead of understanding based.  Just you know the music, not necessarily understand the structure.

[DavidW]

3-10 is too large of a range. There should be more choice, maybe 3-5, 6-8, 9-10?
Also, it really depends on the type of music. Maybe 4-6 times for a short Haydn piece, 8-11 times for Schoenberg, and 20-30 times for Boulez or Carter. 

Perhaps I should have made it "which histogram matches you best?"   Perhaps we have a sorting by era:

< 10	Classical, Romantic
10-100	Baroque, Modern
100-1000	ocd

[Josquin des Prez]

Doesn't work with avant-garde music.

[DavidW]

Doesn't work with avant-garde music.

Indeed.  There is some music that I feel that no matter how often I listened to it I wouldn't grasp it enough to remember it.  Listening to that type of music is an ephemeral experience.

That ties back in with what ' was saying.  I might be only getting to know a piece of music in a superficial way anyway.  In a Bach fugue perhaps I realize it's a fugue and I separate the voices but don't really go beyond that.  Can I go beyond that with further listening?  If so, then I should.  If not, then I've hit my limit before I fully grasped all of the elements of the music.  Which is probably why no matter how many times I listen to Ligeti and Carter I can't recall their music later.

[drogulus]

    When I begin to "get" a piece of music I don't think I'm understanding it. Instead it works like being able to turn a few scattered details into a narrative. It's a matter of coherence rather than correspondence. So my getting the music doesn't involve any interpersonal getting, like agreeing with someone about what the music is like. When someone says that a certain opera is like a "fresh breeze on a summer day" I'm taken aback, since I don't know what would make any piece of music like that, or the antithesis of that. Though I think experience is made of information, each taking can be different and frequently is. So now the Goossens Rite of Spring, formerly boring, isn't any more. Am I understanding something now? I don't know, but I think no. I'm hearing it differently now. The reassembly is different because the listener is different.

    Now I see the poll asks for a feeling, so I'll say 3-10. I'll agree with Greg that you could break that up a bit, say into 3-5 and 6-10.

[Henk]

I picked 2, because 3-10 is a too large range, I think i get it already quite much at 2 listens. I may require 3-4 listens to fully get it, but more then 5 I think I don't need. Maybe with music I'm not used too.  

Talking about "knowing" the work it depends a lot on the particular work. I think I need for Bartok´s SQ 6-10 listens, maybe more, there are so much themes in some works, it's almost impossible to remember them, also in sequence.

Henk

[Henk]

Now this is not going to be about emotional engagement.  The poll is about how many listens do you need to feel that you know where the music is going, you can anticipate because you remember it.  You hear the themes, and you recall them later.  That's what I'm talking about.  

... Take that just for discussion and not voting, the feel like you know where it's going is good enough for the poll.

David you are counter speaking yourself here. Maybe we can revise the poll, because now it's not evenly proceeded.

Henk

[not edward]

Even within one composer, I'll put a range up of from 1 - 100.

Much of Brahms I could feel I "knew" almost at once; the symphonies and string quartets took much longer. Similarly, I'm not sure I "know" Ligeti's San Francisco Polyphony at all, but other works inserted themselves into my brain almost at once.

[DavidW]

David you are counter speaking yourself here. Maybe we can revise the poll, because now it's not evenly proceeded.

Henk

I don't understand.  I don't see a contradiction.  I'm asking for the point where you know the music, i.e. you know what notes are going to be played as you listen to it.  How is that contradictory?

[DavidW]

    Now I see the poll asks for a feeling,

No it doesn't.  I used the word "feel" to be synonymous with "sense" or "perceive".  I didn't use the word to denote an emotional reaction.  You know words can mean different things at different times depending on context and how they are used.

[Elgarian]

The poll is about how many listens do you need to feel that you know where the music is going, you can anticipate because you remember it.  You hear the themes, and you recall them later.  That's what I'm talking about.

I don't think I ever achieve this. I have a poor musical memory, and even my very favourite symphonies, that I may have listened to dozens of times, retain a strong element of surprise ("Oh, I'd forgotten that section was there - oh, and that descending sweep of strings just then - is that in this, too?")

However, I've ticked 3-10 because I think that's closer to being an effective answer. After 3 listenings I'm usually starting to 'get' it. I'm aware on the 4th or 5th listening that I'm treading familar territory, even though I'm walking past groups of trees and bushes that I hadn't noticed before.

But even now I feel I can't answer this properly. I've been listening to Elgar's violin concerto for 40 years, and although I love it and am fascinated by it, I still feel daunted by its unknown-ness, as if I were an ant contemplating exploring an entire cliff face.

[DavidW]

I don't think I ever achieve this. I have a poor musical memory, and even my very favourite symphonies, that I may have listened to dozens of times, retain a strong element of surprise ("Oh, I'd forgotten that section was there - oh, and that descending sweep of strings just then - is that in this, too?")

I'm like you.  I was frustrated with myself recently because I remembered so little of the Hoffmeister Quartet of Mozart's even though I love it.  I've listened to it many times, I've listened through various recordings of it.  But I just didn't remember it.  I've listened to Mahler's symphonies hundreds of times, on dozens of recordings.  But if I just try to recall, I can only think of bits of them, it only comes back to me when I actually sit down and listen again.

I think I discussed musical memory a few months back with Gurn, and we seem to both think that some have excellent musical memory, and others... well they are like us! (oh I'm not necessarily lumping in Gurn with us musical amnesiacs, he might have an excellent memory for music)

[Henk]

I don't understand.  I don't see a contradiction.  I'm asking for the point where you know the music, i.e. you know what notes are going to be played as you listen to it.  How is that contradictory?

I may misunderstood but in this quote:

Now this is not going to be about emotional engagement.  The poll is about how many listens do you need to feel that you know where the music is going, you can anticipate because you remember it.  You hear the themes, and you recall them later.  That's what I'm talking about. 

... Take that just for discussion and not voting, the feel like you know where it's going is good enough for the poll.

You seem to say that the discussion has an other focus then the poll. Is this right? Can you clarify it?

Henk